Home › Forums › Financial Markets/Economics › plunging birthrate
- This topic has 515 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 9 months ago by
briansd1.
-
AuthorPosts
-
June 9, 2011 at 3:18 PM #703327June 9, 2011 at 3:23 PM #702144
bearishgurl
ParticipantAN, perhaps far-reaching uninc areas of Poway could be considered “exurbs” but no, the other areas you mentioned are not exurbs. They are “suburban.”
RSF is situated inside a covenant. It is a different animal entirely.
June 9, 2011 at 3:23 PM #702242ParticipantAN, perhaps far-reaching uninc areas of Poway could be considered “exurbs” but no, the other areas you mentioned are not exurbs. They are “suburban.”
RSF is situated inside a covenant. It is a different animal entirely.
June 9, 2011 at 3:23 PM #702834ParticipantAN, perhaps far-reaching uninc areas of Poway could be considered “exurbs” but no, the other areas you mentioned are not exurbs. They are “suburban.”
RSF is situated inside a covenant. It is a different animal entirely.
June 9, 2011 at 3:23 PM #702982ParticipantAN, perhaps far-reaching uninc areas of Poway could be considered “exurbs” but no, the other areas you mentioned are not exurbs. They are “suburban.”
RSF is situated inside a covenant. It is a different animal entirely.
June 9, 2011 at 3:23 PM #703342ParticipantAN, perhaps far-reaching uninc areas of Poway could be considered “exurbs” but no, the other areas you mentioned are not exurbs. They are “suburban.”
RSF is situated inside a covenant. It is a different animal entirely.
June 9, 2011 at 3:47 PM #702149an
Participant[quote=bearishgurl]AN, perhaps far-reaching uninc areas of Poway could be considered “exurbs” but no, the other areas you mentioned are not exurbs. They are “suburban.”
RSF is situated inside a covenant. It is a different animal entirely.[/quote]
If only far-reaching uninc areas of Poway could be considered “exurbs”, then please tell me which part of that area of Poway have houses with <5000 sq-ft lot as the majority?BTW, let just be clear, you're saying that 4S Ranch is not exurb.
June 9, 2011 at 3:47 PM #702247Participant[quote=bearishgurl]AN, perhaps far-reaching uninc areas of Poway could be considered “exurbs” but no, the other areas you mentioned are not exurbs. They are “suburban.”
RSF is situated inside a covenant. It is a different animal entirely.[/quote]
If only far-reaching uninc areas of Poway could be considered “exurbs”, then please tell me which part of that area of Poway have houses with <5000 sq-ft lot as the majority?BTW, let just be clear, you're saying that 4S Ranch is not exurb.
June 9, 2011 at 3:47 PM #702839Participant[quote=bearishgurl]AN, perhaps far-reaching uninc areas of Poway could be considered “exurbs” but no, the other areas you mentioned are not exurbs. They are “suburban.”
RSF is situated inside a covenant. It is a different animal entirely.[/quote]
If only far-reaching uninc areas of Poway could be considered “exurbs”, then please tell me which part of that area of Poway have houses with <5000 sq-ft lot as the majority?BTW, let just be clear, you're saying that 4S Ranch is not exurb.
June 9, 2011 at 3:47 PM #702987Participant[quote=bearishgurl]AN, perhaps far-reaching uninc areas of Poway could be considered “exurbs” but no, the other areas you mentioned are not exurbs. They are “suburban.”
RSF is situated inside a covenant. It is a different animal entirely.[/quote]
If only far-reaching uninc areas of Poway could be considered “exurbs”, then please tell me which part of that area of Poway have houses with <5000 sq-ft lot as the majority?BTW, let just be clear, you're saying that 4S Ranch is not exurb.
June 9, 2011 at 3:47 PM #703347Participant[quote=bearishgurl]AN, perhaps far-reaching uninc areas of Poway could be considered “exurbs” but no, the other areas you mentioned are not exurbs. They are “suburban.”
RSF is situated inside a covenant. It is a different animal entirely.[/quote]
If only far-reaching uninc areas of Poway could be considered “exurbs”, then please tell me which part of that area of Poway have houses with <5000 sq-ft lot as the majority?BTW, let just be clear, you're saying that 4S Ranch is not exurb.
June 9, 2011 at 6:51 PM #702184njtosd
Participant[quote=CognitiveDissonance]When ever I see a headline about “plunging birthrates” it makes me happy. That’s because I look at things like carrying capacity and ecological footprint. Things like species extinction, loss of biodiversity, top soil erosion, access to clean water, energy depletion, deforestation and a list a mile and half long.
[/quote]
Sorry, but a plunging birthrate (I’m not accepting that this is actually happening), or a global birthrate lower than replacement rate will lead to the extinction of the human species. Does that make you happy?
June 9, 2011 at 6:51 PM #702282Participant[quote=CognitiveDissonance]When ever I see a headline about “plunging birthrates” it makes me happy. That’s because I look at things like carrying capacity and ecological footprint. Things like species extinction, loss of biodiversity, top soil erosion, access to clean water, energy depletion, deforestation and a list a mile and half long.
[/quote]
Sorry, but a plunging birthrate (I’m not accepting that this is actually happening), or a global birthrate lower than replacement rate will lead to the extinction of the human species. Does that make you happy?
June 9, 2011 at 6:51 PM #702874Participant[quote=CognitiveDissonance]When ever I see a headline about “plunging birthrates” it makes me happy. That’s because I look at things like carrying capacity and ecological footprint. Things like species extinction, loss of biodiversity, top soil erosion, access to clean water, energy depletion, deforestation and a list a mile and half long.
[/quote]
Sorry, but a plunging birthrate (I’m not accepting that this is actually happening), or a global birthrate lower than replacement rate will lead to the extinction of the human species. Does that make you happy?
June 9, 2011 at 6:51 PM #703022Participant[quote=CognitiveDissonance]When ever I see a headline about “plunging birthrates” it makes me happy. That’s because I look at things like carrying capacity and ecological footprint. Things like species extinction, loss of biodiversity, top soil erosion, access to clean water, energy depletion, deforestation and a list a mile and half long.
[/quote]
Sorry, but a plunging birthrate (I’m not accepting that this is actually happening), or a global birthrate lower than replacement rate will lead to the extinction of the human species. Does that make you happy?
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.